9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner also filed all the requisite documents such as Bill of Lading, Invoice, etc. The petitioner declared the value of the car as 106000GBP. In the Bill of Entry, it was stated that by the petitioner that the said car is a brand new car and the same was assessed and the petitioner also paid the assessed Customs duty of Rs. 86,47,464/- on 9-1-2009 and the car was released. The petitioner also got temporary registration with RTO, Chennai with certificate of registration in TN-09-TEMP-174. Later, the petitioner took the car to his native place of Pune and once again the same was registered with RTO, Pune. Afterwards, Revenue seized the car on 15-9-2010 on the ground that the value declared by the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner was also forced to pay a sum of Rs. 90,00,000 additionally on completion of assessment by the officials. The Additional Director, DRI, Ahmedabad issued a show cause notice dated 22-9-2010 purposing to re-determine the value of the car at GBP 1,44,485.43 (INR 1,11,05,295/-) under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 2007 and confiscate the car and to demand differential duty of Rs. 89,33, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the court to give direction to the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port-Import) to implement the order passed by the Settlement Commission so that he is entitled to the refund of the duty. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue vehemently contended that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is not in accordance with law. The Settlement Commission had considered the irrelevant material and reduces the amount of duty payable by Rs. 14,64,690/-. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not questioned the other findings of the Settlement Commission and questioned only the additional amount of Customs duty fixed by the Settlement Commission. It was further contended that the second respondent Settlement Commission has not considered properly the scope of the Notification 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 and further it was contended that the Settlement Commission is wrong in holding that it is a new car. There is no material for the Settlement Commission to come to the conclusion that it is a new car that the car was registered in London. Therefore, the order passed by the Settlement Commission is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) which too was an appeal against the orders of the Settlement Commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., speaking for the Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J. observed that in such a case this Court is "concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order". The learned Judge added "judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision-making process". Reliance was placed upon the decision of the House of Lords in Chief Constable of the N.W. Police v. Evans. Thus, the appellate power under Article 136 was equated to power of judicial review, where the appeal is directed against the orders of the Settlement Commission. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the only ground upon which this Court can interfere in these appeals is that the order of the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act and that such contravention has prejudiced the appellant." The abovesaid principle reiterated in the case of Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. cited supra and the Apex Court has held in paragraph 21 as follows : "An order passed by the Settlemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermed "New Vehicle Invoice". Further, the Bench finds that the invoice of M/s. HR. Owen Sports Cars Co., UK itself is addressed in the name of the applicant care of M/s. Hyperformance Co. UK. Hence the argument of Revenue that the vehicle is a second-hand vehicle since it was sold by M/s. HR. Owen & Co., to M/s. Hyperformance Co. and Settlement Application No. S.A./CUS-22/2011-SC than to the applicant is unacceptable. Thus, the Bench finds that the import of this vehicle through Chennai Port is in order." From the reading of the above, it is clear that the Settlement Commission has given a categorical finding based on valid material and evidence. It is also pertinent to note that in similar issue involved in another petitioner's case which came before Special Bench and Additional Bench of the Settlement Commission, Bombay and the Settlement Commission considered the matter in very detail and also considered the notification stated above and decided the case in favour of the importer and granted exemption under the said notification. Aggrieved by that order Revenue preferred writ petition before the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2426 of 2012 and the Bombay High Court by order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
